tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post4636321596314673585..comments2023-12-19T15:10:02.866-08:00Comments on ex cathedra: A Fall morningUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post-68382872173821007112011-10-08T19:26:27.798-07:002011-10-08T19:26:27.798-07:00"I got from reading him --a grandly imperfect..."I got from reading him --a grandly imperfect man--what I never really got from the Gospels: permission to be human."<br /><br />Oh, those humans! They are smart enough to be self-aware, and to develop complex philosophies about there own nature -- yet dumb enough to believe highly _false_ philosphies about their own nature. They are capable of using their most energetic creativities in becoming ever more removed from reality.<br /><br />What is to be done with them? Eliminate them? Confine them? Replace them? Merely tolerate them?<br /><br />--NathanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38413397.post-50834956622626399062011-10-07T12:08:42.598-07:002011-10-07T12:08:42.598-07:00So astonishing a peripety, though: "permissio...So astonishing a peripety, though: "permission to be human." No mere animal needs, seeks, desires, could understand permission for its nature merely. As though being merely human is felt by humans to be a failure. Perhaps it is. "Human, all-too-Human"?<br /><br />What does this permission from Jung amount to? Freud in a way gives such permission, granting that man's nature is sublimation! ... The "Last Man" in Thus Spokek Zarathustra is the man whose self-transcendence is to give up self-transcendence, thus no longer to have to be a man.<br /><br />In Genesis 1 God must _commmand_ even mere 'male and female' man, made by God in his image, to be fruitful and multiply, as he doesn't have to command the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, and the cattle and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.<br /><br />And then in Genesis 2-3, the Sabbath work of Jehovah while God rests [Noahs], the understanding of good and evil by man and woman: but supposing that it could only happen that Adam would eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil receiving from Eve, and that by this 'necessity' it really has been okay that sin and original sin be the walkable Tao, I suppose that Jehovah needn't have bother'd with Genesis 2. (Karl Barth implies this, I think, with his argument that "Esau" or idolatry was necessary, and in "Jacob" arrives merely the annihilation of the idolatry: the Zodiacal coats of skins of animals made by Jehovah to cover Adam and Eve fig-leaf aprons are torn away?)<br /><br />Whatever the arrangement of Genesis 1 was, that was enough. Somehow the ready, walkable Tao is sufficient; if the eternal or true tao only gives permission for the ready, walkable Tao, then the ready, walkable Tao [mimesis?] is the true, eternal tao — something to do as a pathway to the vista of nothingness, the glory of the everything system. (But for this, "non-being" must not be seen in nothingness; nothingness must be true being.)<br /><br />Possibly in that vista for "their own eyes," the sheepherder MSM [men who have sex with men; main stream media, medea?] "are unrecognizable as men." ... Doesn't Jung say that Anima is the inner Self of men?<br /><br />But then why "Egypt"? Egypt was already an improvement, perhaps the "perfection of naturing" simply. As we know from Freud on Ikhnaton, and the Old Testament, great longings for more than 'permission to be human' stir in Egypt. ... Someone in a dialogue by Plato reports that the Egyptians as old men (cf Jung's red book self-portrait) look (sc with envious paid-erastia) on Greeks as boys (paides). Accordingly, the anti-OT side of the West feels and thinks that the Greeks (not the Egyptians) best dream'd the dream of life or naturing.<br /><br />Twain: God or rather 'our Heavenly Father' "invented [sent from the world into this world, from the olam or the coming olam into this olam] man because he was disappointed in the monkey." ... Before "in the BE-ginning" (was) mimesis? If to be human is to do not ratios or logoi but a Tao of what will turn out to be later re-interpreted as mere imitation, then disappointment with the monkey will have to be accepted unto the ages of the ages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com